M
makare
See now here is something that crosses the line from sexist to misogynistic to fuck you asshole really quick
WTF seriously
WTF seriously
>___< "In a Woman's World"
- Thread starter ElJuski
- Start date
- Status
K
Kitty Sinatra
Like within the first word.makare1 said:
doomdragon6
Staff member
Hehe. I thought it was funny.
But I guess I like watching people get worked up over trivial things.
Like this thread!
*rubs tummy* Mmm, so nourishing.
But I guess I like watching people get worked up over trivial things.
Like this thread!
*rubs tummy* Mmm, so nourishing.
arghhh there's a lot to respond to post-work, but I'm not in the mood to do silly things like thinking now.
I do have to say in general, I am not really as worked up and offended as everyone portrays me as. but another general thought: Feminism is about women being able to be seen as equals and human beings, and not a stereotype. It's completely true that there are women that love shopping, and spend thousands of dollars on shoes, and eat ice cream after a breakup when they cry about their boyfriend. That's completely okay!
I really don't see it as any different as the fights for racial equality. There's no difference between sexism and racism in my eyes. Feminism is the same thing as not being a racist. It's absurd seeing people rage and laugh at feminism when those same people would likely condemn the KKK(I hope!).
I also concede that there are a lot of feminists that have some really stupid ideas! But everyone knows the loudest and stupidest people of a group always get noticed the most. Are all conservatives like Rush Limbaugh? Are all liberals like moveon dot org? Are all atheists like Dawkins? All Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church? No, of course not.
Another little thing - the pdf that kissinger linked is really interesting. I recommend it.
I do have to say in general, I am not really as worked up and offended as everyone portrays me as. but another general thought: Feminism is about women being able to be seen as equals and human beings, and not a stereotype. It's completely true that there are women that love shopping, and spend thousands of dollars on shoes, and eat ice cream after a breakup when they cry about their boyfriend. That's completely okay!
I really don't see it as any different as the fights for racial equality. There's no difference between sexism and racism in my eyes. Feminism is the same thing as not being a racist. It's absurd seeing people rage and laugh at feminism when those same people would likely condemn the KKK(I hope!).
I also concede that there are a lot of feminists that have some really stupid ideas! But everyone knows the loudest and stupidest people of a group always get noticed the most. Are all conservatives like Rush Limbaugh? Are all liberals like moveon dot org? Are all atheists like Dawkins? All Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church? No, of course not.
Another little thing - the pdf that kissinger linked is really interesting. I recommend it.
Funny how it says "Contract of Wifely Expectations" right on the first page yet the fourth one says "This is not a contract"." :eyeroll:makare1 said:
This guy could have just found someone with a submissive/slave fetish, problem solved.
I scanned the paper real fast (it's all I had time for, sorry). I focused on the methods and statistics used to analyze their data. First of all, they had way too few subjects to be conducting regression analysis. Secondly, that implication is completely unfounded. Completely. They in absolutely no way assessed nature vs. nurture in terms of emotionality differences between the genders. They did demonstrate differences in emotionality between the genders but could not (at all!!) have shown that it was a cultural influence. The entire basis for that conclusion seems to be "the differences aren't as big as we would have expected". If anything, that article convinced me even more that men and women actually differ in emotionality (in general).Kissinger said:
I didn't bother to argue. It's like running as fast as I can, slamming my head into a wall and trying to make sense of the blood spatters like some sort of medium-like tea leaves reading.MindDetective said:
Real science is on my side, pop-culture psychology disagrees.
Right now the Democrats are making a big stink over Rush Limbaugh. Does that faze him? Hell no. In fact, he's saying "Bring it on!" because he knows that the attention will only benefit him. Same thing with this show. You don't like it, don't watch it and let it die on the vine.
I agree that it plays on a lot of stereotypes, but hell - I think Ally MacBeal was the stupidest show ever because of the way it portrayed women, but that managed to stick around a few seasons. The cartoon that is the topic of this thread is more entertaining than Ally was, and the cartoon wasn't very entertaining.
I agree that it plays on a lot of stereotypes, but hell - I think Ally MacBeal was the stupidest show ever because of the way it portrayed women, but that managed to stick around a few seasons. The cartoon that is the topic of this thread is more entertaining than Ally was, and the cartoon wasn't very entertaining.
L
LordRavage
RRRAAAARRRRR!!!! GENDER MAKE HULK SMASH!!!!!SeraRelm said:SHUT UP!Iaculus said:
*On a side note....everyone knows aliens are the master race.
K
Kitty Sinatra
LordRavage said:
GasBandit
Staff member
Ahh the sweet smell of conflict that ISN'T based on drama.
Look, the long and short of it is this - feminism shouldn't be about enforced gender androgyny, because variety is the spice of life and vive la difference and all that rot. Everybody's different, but no matter how different you are, people are going to make fun of you. It's what they do. It's a bad idea to let them know they're getting to you, but none are so pathetic as the would-be white knights who get hyper-offended on someone else's behalf who might not even be offended themselves. Not only does it insult them because you think you know what they are thinking when you don't, but it also insults them by showing you don't think they can stick up for themselves.
And for the record, my wife laughed at the sale in the desert cartoon, too.
ElJuski
Staff member
Makare (and Gruebeard)-- my point would still stand were the gender roles to be switched. If they took a commercial and said, "What makes a man? Well, he likes, sports and fast cars and steaks and shit", and then decided to, say, make an ad campaign to find the "Manliest City in the World", it would be just as irritating to me.
It's not about people actually enjoying it, or connecting on some level to what's going on. Shit, you have all the right in the world to enjoy having girl-time and gossip and talking about boys and I guess even crying over your hairdresser leaving you (although if you became that cardboard cutout like in that cartoon I would probably not want to talk to you, ever, at all) and that's your perogative. If a guy loves steak and fast cars and getting his bone on while watching UFC Wrestling that's fine too. If you're good people, and you know you like it, and aren't just living in some universe assimilated by commercials and social directives, that's fantastic.
Once again, the only thing that ticks me off is that it's a really shittily written commercial that applies to the most basic of female stereotypes. And there are probably loads of women who are reading into it like "OMG this is -SO- my life" without considering *why*. I doubt that [strike:3w36o9k1]any[/strike:3w36o9k1] most of you on this forum are beyond that stage. But I can only imagine the millions that are, live their life as prescribed by cartoon advertisements, eating some shitty brand of potato chips.
And, @ GB--fuck yes diversity is the spice of life. Personally, I don't give a shit if you're a man or a woman or black or indian or chinese or moonpeople--argh moonpeople--as long as you're a competent, well-meaning, human being. We might not be friends, but it is true that diversity is the spice of life. I think the big problem though is making sure that people are aware of their individuality and of the indoctrination any American / world citizen faces with sociological baggage.
It's not about people actually enjoying it, or connecting on some level to what's going on. Shit, you have all the right in the world to enjoy having girl-time and gossip and talking about boys and I guess even crying over your hairdresser leaving you (although if you became that cardboard cutout like in that cartoon I would probably not want to talk to you, ever, at all) and that's your perogative. If a guy loves steak and fast cars and getting his bone on while watching UFC Wrestling that's fine too. If you're good people, and you know you like it, and aren't just living in some universe assimilated by commercials and social directives, that's fantastic.
Once again, the only thing that ticks me off is that it's a really shittily written commercial that applies to the most basic of female stereotypes. And there are probably loads of women who are reading into it like "OMG this is -SO- my life" without considering *why*. I doubt that [strike:3w36o9k1]any[/strike:3w36o9k1] most of you on this forum are beyond that stage. But I can only imagine the millions that are, live their life as prescribed by cartoon advertisements, eating some shitty brand of potato chips.
And, @ GB--fuck yes diversity is the spice of life. Personally, I don't give a shit if you're a man or a woman or black or indian or chinese or moonpeople--argh moonpeople--as long as you're a competent, well-meaning, human being. We might not be friends, but it is true that diversity is the spice of life. I think the big problem though is making sure that people are aware of their individuality and of the indoctrination any American / world citizen faces with sociological baggage.
S
Steven Soderburgin
You didn't read enough of the study, and so you completely misinterpreted what you read to fit your preconceived world view. The study was not intended to assess nature vs. nurture, only momentary emotional response versus self-evaluation of prior emotional response. What they concluded is that while the moment-to-moment emotional response was very, very close between both genders, the self-evaluation of emotional response was very different. They determined that the stereotype is not accurate. The implication merely speculates that the discrepancy is because of cultural influence.MindDetective said:
Please link me to some studies which both support your claims and are "real science" and explain why they qualify as such while the study I linked is "pop-culture psychology." Does it only qualify as real science if it agrees with what you already know?Edrondol said:
K
Kitty Sinatra
Here's the thing though: If you think a bunch of us aren't influenced by those things, what makes you think everyone else is?ElJuski said:
I've always assumed it's the reverse, though. That we are absolutely influenced by the commercials and messages we receive. I know I am. I see movies based on trailers, I tune into popular TV shows to check them out. I laugh at stereotypes and even believe in a bunch of them. But I still live my own life and ultimately make my own decisions. And I think everybody else does, too.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I agree! It should be about everyone, man or woman, choosing who they want to be regardless of what is expected of them by society at large! It should be about breaking down those stereotypes and - oh, you weren't done talking.GasBandit said:
Oh.
Welp, I guess you're right. I guess all those non-blacks who supported the Civil Rights movement should've just stopped white (heh) knighting. I guess all those straight people who want equal rights for gays should stop insulting the gays by letting them stick up for themselves.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171609.htm
First hit on my search, with about 3 million more hits for the search of "biological difference sexes". Granted, not all of these will be hard science or worthy of reading, but I'm not about to look through them all to test it out.
And my eyerolling of yours is on the small sample size as spoken to before. Regression analysis requires a pretty substantial amount of a population sample or it seriously skews the data and gives us an error margin that is unbelievable. And while a fairly useful tool, regression analysis is nothing more than a guess at what will be based on past data points, which are not necessarily an indicator of future actions. According to regression analysis done in the 1980's & 1990's, the stock market right now should be in the 20 thousand range.
And as MD stated, the study itself acknowledged that there were differences. It was one of the primary findings. It's just not as wide as the researchers thought in the areas they were testing. But it was there. Which proves ME right, not you.
First hit on my search, with about 3 million more hits for the search of "biological difference sexes". Granted, not all of these will be hard science or worthy of reading, but I'm not about to look through them all to test it out.
And my eyerolling of yours is on the small sample size as spoken to before. Regression analysis requires a pretty substantial amount of a population sample or it seriously skews the data and gives us an error margin that is unbelievable. And while a fairly useful tool, regression analysis is nothing more than a guess at what will be based on past data points, which are not necessarily an indicator of future actions. According to regression analysis done in the 1980's & 1990's, the stock market right now should be in the 20 thousand range.
And as MD stated, the study itself acknowledged that there were differences. It was one of the primary findings. It's just not as wide as the researchers thought in the areas they were testing. But it was there. Which proves ME right, not you.
ElJuski
Staff member
You live in a more optimistic (and deluded, honestly) world than I do, I'm afraid. Check the TV show ratings. Check the box office. Check the New York Times Bestseller lists. These ad people know what they are doing, and they are doing it to the masses and they are doing it /good/. Meanwhile people eat it up without thinking about it, go see Paul Blart and manage to TiVo the Hills. It's all boring and it's all opiates to make people stop thinking. Fuck the status quo.Gruebeard said:
"Hell is waking up and realizing your high school graduating class is running the country."~Kurt Vonnegut
Two things.Kissinger said:
1.) Seems like you have a bit of a biased interpretation yourself.
This implies there are differences, just not as dramatic as usually thought. That means this is pretty weak evidence for the position that men and women do not differ in general on emotionality. We won't even get into methodological issues here. A null result can never be taken as strong evidence for that very reason. This is especially true with complex statistical modeling and a small n (28 males and 42 females).
2.) They DID find gender specific differences for momentary emotional responses. It occurs in a crossover interaction with opposite gender partners (not terribly surprising). Missing from these findings: responses in any kind of non-social interaction.
Basically, they found that using a diary method to capture emotionality is hard. This is also not terribly surprising. That they even found the opposite partner interaction effects is amazing, really. That says more about how ingrained sex and socialization is than anything else, I think. What it certainly does not do is provide terribly strong evidence that men and women are the same emotionally or that it is culturally determined. If the argument is that it is culturally influenced, then there isn't much else to discuss. That one is a no brainer.
S
Steven Soderburgin
That link actually tells me nothing. All it says is that scientists are studying the psychological differences between men and women in order to develop gender-specific therapies.Edrondol said:
So what would be an appropriate sample size for the sort of study that was conducted?
Also, regression analysis of the stock market has nothing to do with psychological studies on emotional response, so I don't know why you brought that up. The language used in the study is that the response is not "dramatically different," which seems to disagree with what you were implying before and they further state that the differences are not nearly as pervasive as the stereotype would suggest. I'm did not say that men and women were exactly the same at any point. I just suggested that the stereotype to which you subscribe is inaccurate, a point which the study supports.
-- Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:51 pm --
Wow, you've read a book.GasBandit said:
fakeedit: I don't actually believe you have read that particular book.
Alright, sure, I'll bite.
Gruebeard, what stereotypes do you believe in?
Gruebeard, what stereotypes do you believe in?
K
Kitty Sinatra
Wait, I've totally lost the train of this discussion. I've been going on about stereotypes as a basis of comedy. I strayed from that something fierce didn't I? Cause I'm not sure how we could get to Mall Cop as brainwashing from that.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Also, to be perfectly clear, I don't think it is fighting windmills to fight against cultural stereotypes regarding gender roles and expectations for how men and women should and shouldn't behave.
I agree, but totally disregarding the genetic effect of our differences is.Kissinger said:
S
Steven Soderburgin
I wasn't totally disregarding it. I was saying that the stereotype greatly overstates things, cultural factors play a large part in shaping things, and that, in general, blanket stereotypes are bad things that should not be supported.Edrondol said:
I really don't know why so many of you have a hard time with this.
ElJuski
Staff member
Because I'm talking about the media world plying for the lowest common denominator. In the Paul Blart: Mall Cop case, that a seemingly insepid movie using the "Har, fat guy" stereotype film can beat the shit out of other, more artistic, more meaningful movies. I'm talking about people learning how to seperate the wheat from the chaff and to actively deconstruct the context and aesthetic of all media forms as a way of staying as an individual and a smarter, more productive media-viewer. That, having watched that cartoon I originally linked, I could go, "Huh. That was really trite writing", and realize that millions of viewers are going to take that in face-value as an affirmation of their media-prescribed lifestyle.Gruebeard said:
The problem is is that there are people out there that don't realize how much of a stereotype that is. That's the issue. They're just living it because the world around them tells them too.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Ah, yes. The image macro. The last refuge of the defeated internet poster.GasBandit said:
K
Kitty Sinatra
Hey, back on the discussion point.Charlie Dont Surf said:
Watch a sitcom. Any sitcom. I believe in the stereotypes used to create pretty much every character on the screen.
Oh, but given Kissinger's post just now, I want to add that I'm not talking about stereotypes that set "expectations for how men and women should and shouldn't behave." I'm talking about those that create handy shortcuts to describe how a person likely behaves.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Discussing the factors behind cultural stereotypes as well as the effects of those stereotypes is pseudointellectual bullshit?GasBandit said:
No. No, I disagree.
Because you gave the impression of making a stronger statement than "culture influences stereotypes". If that is really all you are saying then it isn't terribly interesting or much of a contribution to the overall discussion, really.Kissinger said:
S
Steven Soderburgin
So you use stereotypes to make judgements about people before you get to know them? You "pre-judge" people, so to speak?Gruebeard said:
I
Iaculus
Perhaps because the counterattack you assisted in started off as a bit... excessively confrontational?Kissinger said:
This is why I prefer the milder approach - people tend to listen better when you don't come in all guns blazing, regardless of viewpoint.
- Status